Mr. Tompsons name and mine and chap. 1. page 9. of the Answer He saith we there teach that there is a power of cleering truth dogmatically that ultimately where the controversy is ended but he saith we will have this Vltimate power not in a Synod only but also in a Congregation and then no answereth three things which there ensue Answ Our words are these by power of Decrees we understand power to cleere up the truth Dogmatically for the word translated Decrees is Dogmata in the Originall Act. 16. 4. And this power we confesse is in a Synod though not all in a Synod alone but also in the Presbyterie of a single Congregation Now these bring our words if therefore this Reverend Brother would overthrow our Tenent in this particular he should have proved that there is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a single Congregation to cleere up the truth Dogmatically this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach But this be neither proveth nor once attempteth to prove and therefore our Tenent herein doth yet stand good for any thing he hath said to the contrary And no marvell siâ—h the expresse words of the text do witnesse that every Bishop hath power and is boand by his Office and duty by sound Doctrinâ— both to exhort and convince gainsayets Tit. 1. 9. And accordingly the Presbitery of Antioch did labour to cleere up the truth in that controversy about Circumcision and had much disputation about it amongst themselves afore there was any speech of sending to Jerusalem for help Act. 15. 2. Which sheweth that they had power or right to have cleered the matter amongst themselves if ability had served or else this indeavour had been sinful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right So that for ought we yet soe the power that we speake of and which wee hold to bee in the Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord. But let us heare Master Rutherfords Answer First saith he they seeme to make this Dogmaticall power a Church power and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church government and so it must be Church power and Church government in the Synod as well as in the Congregation Answ Whence doth it seeme that we do so make it Are there any such words as here he sets down Or any words equivalent thereto Or doth the place make any mention of Church-power and Church government at all Or is there so much as one word that looketh that way If there be let our Brother say that we seeme to â—each as he doth report but if there be not we are sorry he should report us to teach oâ— seeme to teach that which to our remembrance we never said nor thought And sure it is we have expresly said the direct contrary in page 7 the Page next save one afore this which heere he is dealing against where wee have these words It seemeth to us say we that this power viz. By disquisition and disputation to cleere up the rule and then to command Obedience thereto is not properly a power and exercise of government and Jurisdiction but a power of Doctrine and so a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church These are our words in the Page afore alledged wherein we plainly expresse what the power of Synods seemeth unto us to be even the direct contrary to that which he saith we seeme to make it wee on the one side affirming and expressing that it seemes to us the power of a Synod is no power of government and Iurisdiction but a power of Doctrine And he on the other side reporting that we seeme to make the exercise of Dogmaticall power to be formally an act of Church-government and so to place Church-government in the Synod In which report we must needs say wee are plainly mis-reported His second answer is this The last period and Conclusion of the controversie cannot be both in the Congregation by right only and in the Synod by right only For two last powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate Iudicatures Answ This is very true but it toucheth not us at all For we never said the last period of the controversie is both in the Congregation only and in the Synod onely If we have so said let the place be produced where we have said it for the place by him alledged doth afford us no such thing nor any place else that we know of All that the place affords concerning this point is only this that there is a power of cleering the truth Dogmatically in a Synod though not in a Synod only but also in the Presbytery of a single Congregation And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not deny But whether this power be last in the Synod or in the Congregationall Presbytery of this we do not speaks at all much lesse do we say as he doth apprehend and report that this power is both last in the Synod and last in the Congregation too Wherefore our defence in this particular must needs be this that what here he confuteth to be outs is such a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens nor for ought we know did never enter into our thoughts Thirdly he saith If a controversie concerne many Congregations as this doth Act. 15. I see not how a Congregation except they transgresse their line can finally determine it Answ Neither doth this touch us except we had said that a Congregation may finally determine controversies which concerne many Churches which yet we have not said As for that controversie Act. 15. It is plaine from verse 2 that Antioch did endeavour to have ended it amongst themselves so far as they were troubled therewith For some teaching that corrupt Doctrine amongst them they had much disputation about the point afore they determined to send out for helpe elsewhere Now to what end was thus much disputation if they had no right to determine the matter might they not better have spared their paines Or did they not transgresse their line in attempting what they did attempt Sure it seemes they did if they had not right to determine the matter But for our part sith we do not find them in the least reproved by the Holy Ghost for this attempt therfore we cannot but think they did well therein And thereupon it followeth that if Antioch was a Congregationall Church as it seemes to us it was from Act. 14. 27. either this controversie did trouble no Church but Antioch only or else when a controversie or corrupt opinion doth trouble many Churches one of them may lawfully determine and end it so farre at it concernes themselves CHAP. V. Againe of that Assembly Act. 15. Whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and Excommunication in Synods and whether Preaching doe prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church THe new place where I find him excepting
punishing theeves and such other malefactors only for this reason because to their knowledge other Corporations are troubled with the like lewd persons I suppose it is easie to see the insufficiency and invalidity of such Consequences And therefore if Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders as themselves were troubled withall this needs not to hinder but they may determine questions that arise amongst themselves and may censure such of their members as shall trouble the Church or Brethren therewith and obstinately persist in so doing This being considered withall that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compasse For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practise and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both doth endeavour the removall of these corruptions they do not hereby attempt and endeavour to remove them out of other Churches which might be an appearance of stretching their line beyond their compasse but out of their own Church and only so farre as concernes themselves and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further then their Power doth reach But he gives another reason why Antioch had not right to determine the question And this is taken from the strong party that was in Antioch against the truth which was such as that they opposed Paul and Barnabas concerning which he saith that when the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth as is cleere Act. 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they loose their jus their right to determine eatenus in so farre for Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for truth and therefore in this Appeales must be necessary Answ How is it cleere that the greatst part of the Church at Antioch was against the truth The text doth not say so much but only this that certain men which came from Iudea taught the Brethren and said except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved and that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them about the matter and that in the issue they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others should go up to Ierusalem about the question Thus much the Scripture witnesseth Act. 15. 1 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine at Antioch were the major or the minor part of the Church the text doth not expresse except we shall say that where a false Doctrine is taught by some and greatly opposed and disputed against by others there it must needs bee that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine which wee thinke is no good Consequence And therefore whereas our Author saith the greatest part of this Church was against the Truth and that so much is cleere from verse 2. I answer first that I do not perceive this cleerenesse neither from verse 2 nor from any other place of the Chapter Nextly suppose this were cleere this may argue that they wanted ability and light to end the matter but must it needs argue that they wanted right though they had been able Or shall we say that they who want ability to doe things as they should be done do therefore want right to â—â—alâ— in them at all I conceive it will not follow and the reason is because this right in Churches is Naturall or Connaturall to every Church and this want of ability is only accidentall and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church our Brother own words do testifie Page 341. Where he saith this viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that she have power of government also in so farre as she is a Church yea power of government upon this supposition is Naturall or rather connaturall And in Page 307 he saith as was alledged before That the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive Is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall or in a Nationall yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head And in Page 383. He saith That to a Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsciâ—ally in it derived from none but immediately from Iesus Christ And the like he saith of a Presbyteriall Church Now whether Antioch was a Congregationall Church as we hold or a Presbyteriall as is holden by this our Brother yet it is cleere by those words of his here alledged that being essentially a Church it had a politicall Church power intrinscically within it selfe yet a perfect and compleat power of Iurisdiction yea and such a power as was naturall or connaturall unto her as she was a Church But now the light of knowledge whereby they should be enabled well to use this power did not adde any power unto them which they had not before not did the want of it being but accidentall deprive them of that Power which was intrinscicall essentiall and connaturall unto them as they were a Church of Christ Onely this want did hinder their ability to expresse their power well but their right as being a thing Connaturall did still remaine Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civill Power which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking oâ—â—bo it the Church-power In one place he saith thus There is a two-fold power in a King one in a King as a King and this is a like in all and ordinary regall coactive whether the King be an Heathen a Turke or a sound believing Christian there is another power in a King as such a King either as a Propheticall King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King And of this latter he saith that it is not a new regall power but potestas execuliba a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power which he had before as a King Page 387. c. 388. â—ow why may it not be said in like sort there is in a Church two-fold Power one in a Church as it is a Church and this is a like in all true Churches of Christ whether the Church in this or that particular question have light to discerne and hold the truth or otherwise another in a Church as it is sound believing Church holding the truth in such or such question and this is but only a gracious ability to exercise the power which they had before not adding to them any new Power at all Againe in his Page 393. he hath these words Though the King were not a Christian Magistrate yet hath he a Kingly power to command men as Christians and it is by accident that he cannot in that state command Christian duties and service to Christ because he will not and cannot command those dutyes remaining ignorant of Christ
then that much people that beleeved might so assemble much more For if there be no impossibility but a company that is greater may so assemble I suppose the same cannot bee denyed of a company that is lesser Againe to say this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved is directly to gainsay himselfe who in Page 460 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word Sacraments and Church censures because such a Congregation he saith could not conveniently exceed one thousand whereas the much people must bee much in comparison of thousands of Jewes who rejected Christ for that otherwise it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort for which end it is mentioned and brought If it be said the whole Church be lesse then the people that beleeved then it followes that some of those beleevers were not of the Church and so what himselfe hath written Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand For in Page 125 hee saith That the Seale of Baptisme and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church and by this are all the Citizens and domesticks in-Churched and received into a visible Church And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely professe Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiasticall power valid for that effect and Page 251. he saith a visible profession of the truth and Doctrine of golinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible Church and every member of the visible Church Now if these things be so then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptisme and profession which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof And they were all members of the Church then the Church was not a lesser company then they Nor can hee say it was a greater company for the reasons mentioned before And if it was neither a greater company nor a lesser was it not then the same And if it was the same then how can this stand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand where hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved It seemes to me that which way soever he shall take his own pen will be witnesse against himselfe for in the place wee have in hand hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved and in another place hee tels us that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word Sacraments c. And yet in a third place hee tels us that in effect it was not greater inasmuch as all Baptized professing beleevers hee saith are of the Church Further when the Text speakes of the whole Church comming together in some place let the wise judge whether it be a good Exposition to say by the whole is not meant the whole but only a part Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place but part in one place and part in another the whole being distributed into severall parts and those parts into severall places So that the whole Church comming together into some place must have this meaning the whole came not together in any place but part in one place and part in another which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text which should be handled with reverence But he brings a reason for this Exposition and that is this Because else we must say that at any one Assembly all the Prophets and teachers did Prophesy at Corinth for the Text saith he is convinced of all he is judged of all whereas the consequence should bee absurd it should bee a longsome and wearisome meeting Page 465. Answ And if they Prophesyed not all in one Assemâ—ly but divers how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all It will not bee easie to conceive how it could be they Prophesying in such a way for the unbeleever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblyes at once but in one onely And therefore those words he is convinced of all he is judged of all will lay as much absurdity upon his Exposition of the words as upon ours or rather a great deale more For as for ours there is no absurdity therein at all for asmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time when the unbeleever was present and not that all must Prophesy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it But the Text doth not so say nor any Interpreter that I have met withall Sure I am Beza saith the expresse contrary for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophesy one by one c. He hath this note Non eodem sane die sed ternis c. That is indeed not all upon one day which is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition but three at every moeing having their turne to speak till all had spoken by course Interpreters say they met in divers Assemblies Page 465. Answ Let those Interpreters be named and there words set down and then by Gods help we shall consider of what they say and of the grounds and reasons thereof in the meane time to say that interpreters say it and yet neither to tell us the reasons nor the words of those Interpreters nor so much as the names of any of them how should this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehensions in the point True it is in another place c. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophesy one by one hee there tels us that Diodatus understands it that they might Prophecy by course and in divers or sundry Assemblies And Essius saith he saith the same to wit that these Prophets were to Prophesy in divers Assemblies Answ For Diodatus I have him not at hand and therefore I cannot peruse the place But for Estius this I may say that he neither saith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verse alledged nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter as farre as I can observe and I have read and perused him on purpose to see what were to be found in him But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for yet I find sundry places wherein he seemes to me to affirme the contrary for instance Commenting upon the verse alledged hee hath these words as the sence which he most preferres viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures c. That is If not only one Prophet but sundry yea all do speake in the Assembly in order it will come to passe that those all may also learne and receive exhortation there being never a one of them who is not also a hearer Wherein we see he speaks not
A REPLY TO Mr. Rutherfurd OR A defence of the Answer to Reverend Mr. Herles Booke against the Independency of Churches VVherein such Objections and Answers as are returned to sundry passages in the said Answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd a godly and learned Brother of the Church of Scotland in his Booke Entituled The Due Right of Presbyters are examined and removed and the Answer justified and cleared By RICHARD MAâ—HER Teacher to the Church at Dorchester in New ENGLAND 1646. LONDON Printed for J. Rothwell and H. Allen at the Sun and Fountaine in Pauls Church-yard and the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1647 The Authors Preface to the Reader Christian Reader HAving published some yeares agoe a small Treatise in way of a brotherly Answer to reverend Master Herle I now present unto thy view a defence thereof against such objections and answers as have been returned to sundry passages therein by reverend and learned Master Rutherfurd In which undertaking it hath been farre from my intention to increase or uphold the differences that have appeared of late yeares in England amongst the servants of the Lord about matters of Church government For I had much rather bring Prayers and teares for the quenching of such fires then fewell or oyle for the increasing thereof neither shall the same I hope be any thing at all increased by what here I present now thy view At the least this I may say that I intended no such thing but the contrary even the promoting of truth and peace if it were the will of God so to blesse my desires and endeavors True it is I have taken the liberty to consider and try some things delivered by that reverend brother whom here I have to doe withall but this I trust cannot be justly offensive in as much as the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 32. and the doctrine of the Apostle himselfe was examined by those noble Bereans whom the holy Ghost commendeth for searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 17. 11. It is also true which our reverend brother saith in his Epistle to the Reader before his Peaceable Plea that there is great cause of sorrow that all the Lords people should not minde one thing and sing one song and joyne in one against the Children of Babel Neverthelesse this may be some comfort against this sorrow that by the providence of the Lord this diversity of opinions and disputes if it be Christianly carried as it may may occasion and produce in the issue the further clearing up of truth For as our author well observeth from the Collision of opinions resulteth truth and disputes as stricken flints cast fire for light Due Right of Presbyt Epistle to the Reader The desire and hope whereof together with the advice of such brethren as I consulted withall was that which chiefely prevailed with me for the publishing of this reply wherein the reader will finde sundry Scriptures and questions controverted in these times discussed and considered so farre as the nature of a Reply or defence did lead thereto and I hope some or other through Gods blessing may receive some profit thereby And if the humble Christian who desires to know and love and practise the truth shall receive any benefit or help for attaining these ends by meanes of this labour of mine it is that which I intended and aimed at and for which I desire that God alone may have the praise and glory If any shall still remaine otherwise minded yet in due time I hope God shall reveale even this unto them In the meane time diversity of apprehensions in these points ought not to bred any alienation of affection amongst those that are otherwise Orthodoxe and sincere It were a thousand pitties if it should For my part I cannot but approve what this reverend brother sometime professeth that he doth both love and dispute contradict and reverence at once Peaceable Plea Epist Yea he counts himselfe a debtor for love charity honour and all due respect in Christ Jesus and a seat and lodging in his heart and highest esteeme to all those that be godly lovers of the truth and sufferers for the truth against Prelacy though possibly they like not well of Presbyteriall government ibid. In answer whereto for I would be loth that such love should be lost upon us without due returne of the like I would for my part professe the like deare and due respect to all those that are qualifyed as here he doth describe of which sort I know there are many though possibly they may like better of the way that is called Presbyteriall then of the Congregationall For those that give apparent Testimonies that they are the Lord's and so that they must live together in heavens I know not why they should not love one another on earth what ever differences of apprehensions may for the present be found amongst them in some things As for bitternesse of spirit and tartnesse of contests I never thought that to be Gods way of promoting truth amongst brethren and therefore I have endevoured in this discourse to avoid the same For I beleeve there is more hope of doing good by solidity of argument with a spirit of meeknesse and love then by sharp and tart language the fruit of bitternesse of spirit wherein for the most part right of reason is wanting the passions being there most vehement and stirring where the intellectuals are most â—eeble and weake Now if any aske why this defence hath been so long deferred it being now two yeares and more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came forth such may be pleased to consider that New England being as 't is counted 3000 miles distant from old therefore many Books may be extant in England a long time afore we that are so remote can so much as heare any sound thereof and those few that come to our knowledge are commonly extant in England a matter of a yeares space afore and sometimes longer In which respect many things may be spoken and Printed against us whereto it cannot be expected that we should returne any speedy Answer And though it be now twelve moneths agoe or more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came to my hands yet at that time my few spare houres from my constant and ordinary employments were wholly taken up otherwise so that I could not attend this businesse any sooner which I desire may be accepted as a just apologie for the late coming forth of this Reply which as it may seeme late so it is more large then in some respect I could have desired by reason that I doe usually transcribe those words of Master Rutherfurd whereto I dâ—e apply my Answer which course I confesse I did not unwillingly in some respects chuse partly to save the Reader a labour of turning to the place in Master Rutherfurd which I am speaking too which else he must have done or
have taken things upon my report upon trust and partly that my candid and faire dealing with the Author whom I have to doe withall might the better appeare For when a mans words are not kept but forsaken and others substituted in their place his minde and meaning may soone be mistaken and represented amisse unto the Reader Which is a practise that I have often seene but never approved and therefore I have not used it For I would be loth to wrong any man specially a man of such worth as I take Master Rutherfurd to be by imputing to him what he doth not teach nor deliver and for this cause it is that I have usually transcribed and expressed his owne words and by this meanes my booke is growne to the greater bulk One thing more I would advertise the Reader of and then I shall quickly have done the figures from 185 and so forward noting the number of the Pages in Master Rutherfurd his Treatise are set downe twice therein once in their proper place and againe after the page 484. Wherefore if any of these pages be quoted in this Reply as some of them are if the thing that is alleaged be not found in the page that is named looke for it in the other place of the booke where are the same figures and there you may finde it Courteous Reader study the truth in a way of Piety and peace Be zealous for it but lose not love to the Saints beware when the world is filled with disputes about discipline that thou be not drawne onely to erroneous opinions in maine matters of doctrine Be sure to practise and expresse the power of Godlinesse in humility of minde mortification of thy own corruption faith in the Lord Jesus and love to all his redeemed and be not by any meanes drawne away from these things which doe so mainly conduce to thy salvation Finally as the Holy Ghost saith Phil. 4. 8 9. whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are lovely pure and of good report if there be any vertue if there be any praise thinke on these things and doe them and the God of peace shall be with thee Improve I pray such interest as thou hast in God through the mediator by affording the help of thy Prayers for me who am Truly desirous of thy Salvation R. M. Decemb. 10. 1646. A Table of the Contents of the ensuing Treatise Chap. 1. OF Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales and whether by Mr Rutherford his doctrine in this point there must not be appeales to Generall Counsells whose power of Iurisdiction he doth not yet deny page 2. Chap. 2. Of the power of Synods to give advite and Counsell and whether from thence it doth follow that they have no power to command page 11. Chap. 3. Of the Assembly Acts. 15. whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision and whether their rebuking of them does argue the Affirmative page 15. Chap. 4. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods And of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto page 21. Chap. 5. Againe of that Assembly Acts. 15. whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and excommunication in Synods and whether preaching do prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church page 24. Chap. 6. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Ierusalem page 30. Chap. 7. Whether the lawfulnesse or necessity of Appeales doe prove a superiority of Iurisdiction in Synods over Congregations and of sundry sayings of our Author which seeme to interfere page 39. Chap. 8. Whether Antioch Acts. 15. had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had bin able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth do prove the contrary And of Supremacy of power in Congregations page 49. Chap. 9. Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall do make the Gospel more defective then the Law of Excommunication by a Church that hath onely three Elders and of doing things suddenly page 66. Chap. 10. Whether the necessity of discipline be greater then of Sacraments and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise entirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none and whether a man may take on him the whole Minestry having no outward calling thereto and may not as well take on him one act of baptising or ministring the Lords Supper page 75. Chap. 11. Whether the power of Iurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none and whether otherwise neighbouring Churches be not a losse And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power page 93 Chap. 12. Whether it be against the light of nature that the adverse party be Iudge and whether Mr Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach and whether this saying that parties may not be Iudges do make against entirenesse of power in a Congregation any more then in a Generall or Nationall Councell page 104. Chap. 13. Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Jerusalem were each of them more then one Congregation and of Mr. Baynes his judgement therein Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. and whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely or to all the people also page 112. Chap. 14. Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together in some place c. doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely page 123. Chap. 15. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem and the judgement of Mr Baynes whether that Church was many Congregations or one onely page 137. Chap. 16. Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation and whether Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the affirmative page 140. Chap. 17. Whether or no liberties are given by Christ to the people but women must exercise the same as well as men And of the peoples liberty about ordination or the calling of Ministers page 146. Chap. 18. Of Mr Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in New-England page 151. Chap. 19. Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power of Iurisdiction in generall Councels denied by Mr. Rutherford whether therein be doe not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the Iurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies page 153. Chap. 20. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all
Circumcision but doth also rebuke them for another fault to wit their obtruding their false way upon the Soules and Consciences of others and for their wilfull and obstinate upholding that opinion and raysing a Schisme in the Church But if all this were granted his purpose were not gained thereby unlesse he would prove that which he doth but only affirme to wit That a Synodicall rebuke is not specifically different but only gradually from Excommunication and that both must proceed from the same power which yeâ— he hath not proved at all But saith he I argue thus If the Apostles do not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine in this Synod but also in Church way and by a Juridicall power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as subverters of Soules and Lyers then they doe not onely use a meere Doctrinall power in this Synod but also a Juridicall power but the former is true Ergo so is the latter Answ With favour of so learned a man I thinke this kind of arguâ—ng is but a begging of the thing in question and a proving of Idem per Idem For if the Synod did not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine but also by a Iuridicall power rebuke the Authors of it then it must needs be true indeed that they did not only use a Doctrinall power but also a Iuridicall power that is If they did so they did so if they did use such power they did use it But there still lyes the question whether they did so or no and whether they did use such power or not and this kind of arguing doth not cleere it all If we on the contrary should argue thus if this Assembly did not put forth any power of Iurisdiction or Discipline but only in a Doctrinall way conâ—ute a false Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it then they did onely put forth a Doctrinall power and not any power of Iurisdiction one of farre lesse abilities then our learned Author would soone espy the loosenesse of such reasoning at least himselfe we doubt not would soone espy it for sometimes we heare him say friend your Logick is naught page 177. And yet be it spoke without offence the Logick which himselfe doth here use is not so good as to be altogether without fault no not for the forme of it and therefore we do not see how any thing can be concluded thâ—reby But to leave this mistake and to consider of the matter it selfe If it were granted that this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way consute a false Doctrine but also rebuke the Authors thereof must it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a Iuâ—idicall way Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults but only in a way of â—â—â—â—ction and Discipline I suppose much needs not to be said for the cleering the truth to be otherwise For Master Rutherford himselfe confesses Page 394. That there is great odds to do one and the same action materially and to do the same formally and Page 393. That one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision Which being so it followeth thereupon that though this Synod to call it so Act. 15. Had a Doctrinall power yea and a power of rebuking these false teachers yet the thing that he from thence would inferre viz. Their power of rebuking in a Iuridicall way and their power of Excommunication these are neither of them proved thereby For if it should be said that though rebuking do not alwayes imply Iuridicall power yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke then the power here spoken of may be concluded thence to be in a Synod The Answer is that this will not helpe at all because this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient viz. The Synod for effecting or acting the same effect Now Master Rutherford confesseth pag. 393. That he doth not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of those Decrees from the efficient causes and gives that for his reason which to me is unanswerable to wit because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision And in the page next ensuing he confesseth also that actions have not by good Logick their totall specification from the efficient cause Which being so then though it were granted that any Synod may and that this Synod did performe this action of rebuking yet the thing in question to wit that the power of a Synod is a power of Iurisdiction and of Excommunication is not at all gained thereby At the least wise to end this passage this I may say that if this Reverend Brother will be true to his own Principles and not gainsay what himselfe hath already written he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from this argument of their power to rebuke nor yet from any other argument whatsoever and the reason is because he doth elsewhere confesse that Synods are not to Excommunicate any and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers but to remit the censuring of them to other Churches Commanding them to doe it His words as they are to be seene in his Page 413. are these viz. I could easily yeeld that there is no necessity of the Elicit acts of many parts of government such as Excommunication Ordination admitting of Heathens professing the Faith to Church-membership in Synods Provincicall Nationall or Oecumenicall but that Synods in the ease of neglect of Presbyterycall Churches Command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their duty and in this sence Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of Circumcision In which words we have two things concerning Excommunication to omit other particulars first that there is no necessity that Synods should Excommunicate any but only command the Churches to do their duty therein Secondly in particular concerning that Synod Acts 15. That they were to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbyteries of Antioch and Jerusalem in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders or Circumcision Which particulars being most true as I for my part so esteeme of them it followes thereupon that what Master Rutherford saith in this place we have now in hand is greatly weakned thereby For how both these can stand together that this Synod should have power not only to rebuke but to Excommunicate these false teachers and yet neither Provinciall Nationall nor Oecumenicall Synods to Excommunicate any nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers but to remit the censure to other Churches to whom it concerned commanding them to do it how these things I say can stand together I for my part am not able to understand CHAP. IIII. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods and of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto IN his Page 396. alledging
whereas in the place we have been speaking of he saith Antioch the greater part of them being against the truth did lose their jus their right to determine for which as wee have heard he gives this reason because Christ hath given no right and power to determine against the truth but for it yet now wee see he grants distinction between ability and right and saith a Presbyteriall Church may still retaine this latter of their right even then when they want the other of ability Which two sayings whether they do perfectly agree and whether in the latter of them he do not plainly come up to us against whom he hath been disputing in the former I leaue it to the wise in heart and especially to himselfe to consider For for my part I must confesse that these two sayings A Presbyteriall Church as Antioch may have right jus to judge a point to the judging whereof they may want ability and Antioch a Presbyteriall Church wanting ability did thereby lose their right or jus to determine the point these two I say are such sayings as are not easie for me to reconcile Lastly if it be said our Brother doth not deny unto Antioch or a Church in error all power simply to determine but only to determine tali mode that is to determine against the truth for his words are they lose their jus their right eatenus in so far I answer he hath such a word indeed as eatenus in so farre but if any shall say he meant no more in this dispute but only that such a Church hath no right to determine against the truth I conceive that he that shall so say shall therein impute some fault unto our Brother even the fault of wresting Mr. Tompsons Tenent and mine and suggesting against us unto his Reader as if we had held such a thing as we never wrote nor thought For it is plain that our Brother in his Pag. 424. is disputing against us For he saith that we teach the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof And sets down Master Tompsons name and mine as the men that so teach in Answer Page 42. And a few lines after he saith I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the Controversie Act. 15. And then hee gives two reasons for the contrary So that it is manifest that he intends this dispute against us Now what have we said in this matter Have we delivered any such thing that Antioch had right to determine against the truth Let the Answer be viewed in the place which he alledgeth viz. Page 42. And I am sure no such grosse Tenent will be there found no nor any where else in our writing That which we have said is this that Antioch had right to have determined the matter if ability had served thereto but for right to determine against the truth we never spake one word that soundeth that way Our Brother therefore intending this dispute against us and plainly expressing so much and our Tenent being no other then as I have said it must therefore needs follow that his intendment is that Antioch had no right to determine that matter But for right to determine against the truth he cannot confute such a Tenent as ours we never having delivered any such thing but he must withall be culpable of manifest mistaking and mis-reporting of us to the World and we are and must be slow to believe that a man of such worth would willingly do us such wrong It remains therefore that right to determine and not right to determine against the truth is the thing which he opposâ—tâ— as ours and therefore it is that in this sence and meaning I have here applyed my answer The 〈…〉 thus much That Antioch had right to determine against the 〈…〉 that may soone be conâ—uted but the Tenent is none of ours That 〈…〉 to determine is indeed our Tenent and whether this be conâ—uted 〈…〉 let the wise and Iudicious consider CHAP. IX Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe make the Gospell more difficultive then the Law Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders and of doing things sudainly IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr Tâ—mpson and me and alledging Page 17 18. of the Answer He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales upon appeales from a Congregation to a Classis then to a Synod then to a Nationall Assembly then to an Oecâ—â—â—â—nicke Councell and this way while the world endureth causes are never determined and Synods cannot alwayes be had even as in Ierusalem the supreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Proselites as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia Act. 8. And from the remoteâ—â— parts of the Holy Land but God hath provided better for us in the new Testament where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controversie And then Page 425. He subjoyneth his Answer Answ Though I deny not but some of the things here alledged are written by us in the Paâ—â—â— namâ—d yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expresseth viz. To shew that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much Iudaize that I do utterly deny For the places being viewed will plainly witnesse that wee bring the things alledged for another end viz. To shew whether the way that is called Independencie do make the people as some have thought of it more defective and improvident then their Law For this being objected against that way wee in answer thereto do shew by sundry particulars that it is not that way that is justly culpable in this respect but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these dayes in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent and on the other side the way of our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the condition of the Iewes So that not Iudayzing but making our condition more defective then the Iewes is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren Nor do I see how our Brother in his Answer doth free their Doctrine and way from being justly culpable in this respect If we had intended the thing which he reporteth we would never have used such a reason as he truly reportâ— us to use viz. That by appeales upon appeales causes according to our Brethrens way may be so protracted as never to be determined nor ended For this reason hath neither strength nor colour of strength for such a purpose as he saith we bring it for inasmuch as it is well known that the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes among them And therefore to say that our Brethren do Iudaize and then to give that for a
Iudge and party too in the cause there can be no Ceremony or Type in this Next of all I alledge the words of the same Reverend Author in his Page 10 Which is also alledged in the forementioned place of the Answer Where the words are these What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother but the whole Congregation What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part Shall we thinke the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale here That the offended party be not against all equity the sole and finall Judge of the offence In which places wee see it is plaine yet this Reverend Author counts it against the very light of Nature that the adverse party should bee Iudge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the party offended should bee sole and finall Iudge of the offence And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should say that none of them do so teach Yea it is the more marvellous inasmuch as both these places of Mr. Herle are expresly mentioned in that very page of the Answer which here Mr. Rutherford is disputing against And therefore it he had not remembred that himselfe had read the same in Mr Herle as like enough he had yet finding the same alledged by us in that Scripture of ouâ—s it is marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to search and see whether the thing were so or no afore he had denyed the same Whereas on the contrary whether he searched or searched not this we see that he roundly affirmes that none of them do so teach to which saying I know not how to assent our eyes having so plainly seene and read the direct contrary Yea and further it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should thus write considering not only what hath been already said but also what himselfe hath written elsewhere I will mention a few of his own sayings and then himselfe shall be â—udge whether the thing we have now in hand was by him adviseâ—ly and well spoken In his Peâ—ceable Plea Page 218 he hath these words When the Graecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church the Hebrew Church cannot complaine to the Graecian Church for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the same Treatise where he saith If one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an Assembly where there is more light and greater Authority as the weaker may fly to the stronger Now let himselfe be judge whether in these testimonies compared he do not teach that it is against the Law of Nature that parties should be Iudgeâ— and that therefore men may appeale from them Againe those words Page 27 of the same Book are so plaine as that nothing can be more These words saith he what soever yee bind on earth c. Must be meant only of the Apostles and of the Church verse 18. Yea and it must exclude Peter and his offending Brother suppose they were both beleevers because parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges Lasâ—ly those words are expresse in his Due Right of Presbytery in his see â—nd P. 338 339. Where hee writes thus If according to the Law of Nature and Nations no man can be Iudge in his own cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one Congregation when they are a party to the caused person Naturall but the former is reason Nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter In the Assumption of which Sylogisme he plainly affirmes that it is reason Nature and the Law of Nations that no man may be judge in his own cause and by all this I suppose tâ— is manifest that the thing which he saith none of them do teach is expresly and plainly taught by some of them and among others even by himselfe who therefore ought not to have denyed the same nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulnesse in so doing And if so great an oversight be found in him I hope himself may thereby be intreated to be tender of agravating matters against us or others at leastwise not so farre to agravate them as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold for a mans owne infirmities should make him more equitable and favourable towards others And Christian Readers may be warned hereby not hastily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written afore they have duly examined and tryed the same whether the things bee so or not for wee see through forgetfulnesse or otherwise hee may greatly mistake himselfe and misse of the truth and give forth such sayings and expressions for truth as are in no sort to be maintained but recalled though neverthelesse he is otherwise a man of great worth and so ever to be acknowledged We teach that it is not Congruous to the wisdome of Christ nor to the light of Nature that Christ should have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts so many thousand Congregations who may rather crie then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onely ordinary Iudges in their own cause Answ These qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges are such as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now Now indeed it is said 1. That all Congregations being so many thousand 2. May not be the only ordinary Iudges in their own cause but it would bee against the wisdome of Christ and light of Nature if it should so be Yet formerly it was delivered absolutely and simply that it is against the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges without any such modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf gives to help the matter withall Neverthelesse by qualifying the thing in this sort it seemes thereby to bee still granted that though so many thousand Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in their own cause but the light of Nature will be against it yet for some Congregations and at some times the thing may be allowed well enough else why is the thing denyed only to so many Congregations and ordinarily if it be not thereby implyed that some Congregations and at some times may thus practise Now hereupon the question groweth whether some at some times may bee allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature though all may not or whether the light of Nature bee changed when there comes to be many Congregations and be not the same that it was before when there was no more Congregations but one whether I say some new light of Nature do arise with the rise of new Congregations so that when they are many it would be against this light for them thus to bee Iudges though it was not so when there was but one or whether we must say the light of Nature remaining in the same one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto but